Parkware Trading Pty Limited, Trading as Vault Lock Company, Re

This matter concerns trade mark application number 482007, lodged by Parkware Trading Pty Limited, trading as Vault Lock Company. The application sought registration for a composite mark comprising the word "VAULT" within an oval border, in respect of goods in class 6, initially specified as "locks, catches, door hardware of various shapes, types and sizes," and later amended to "Locks, including padlocks, door hardware including security chains therefor and lock cylinders." The delegate of the Registrar of Trade Marks was required to determine whether the mark was registrable in Part A or Part B of the Register.

The primary legal issues before the delegate were whether the trade mark was inherently adapted to distinguish the applicant's goods from those of other traders, as required for registration in Part A, and whether it was capable of becoming distinctive, as required for registration in Part B. The examiner had objected to the application under sub-sections 24(1)(c), (d), and (e) of the Act, asserting that the word "VAULT" was not an invented word and directly described the goods as being for use on vaults or strongrooms. The delegate also considered the distinctiveness of the mark as a whole, including the oval border, and the applicant's alternative request for Part B registration.

The delegate reasoned that the word "VAULT" is directly descriptive of the goods in question, citing dictionary definitions that link the term to secure storage rooms and compartments, which would necessarily incorporate or require locking mechanisms and door hardware. Applying the principle that direct reference corresponds to aptness for normal description, the delegate found the word "VAULT" to be an apt description for the specified goods. Furthermore, the delegate considered the mark as a whole, including the oval border, and concluded that it lacked inherent distinctiveness. Drawing on precedent, the delegate determined that the oval border did not sufficiently enhance the distinctiveness of the descriptive word "VAULT" to render the composite mark registrable in Part A, as other traders might reasonably wish to use a similar mark. Consequently, the delegate found the mark also failed to meet the criteria for Part B registration, as it was not inherently adapted to distinguish the goods and no evidence of acquired distinctiveness had been presented.

Accordingly, the delegate refused trade mark application 482007, finding that the mark did not fall within the provisions of sections 24 or 25 of the Act.